Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is a two hour drive really that inconvenient, from Boston to the White Mountains?
Access seems easy any convenient to me.
But is it fair to say that one city is better for outdoor activities than another city if you have to leave the city to access these activities? I wouldn't give credit to Minneapolis for having proximity to the north woods, north shore, or the driftless area because these areas are not in the city or metro.
You are vastly underestimating how much forestation and greenery Minneapolis has.
I wasn't really speaking to forestation; I did in fact say that it looks like the Minneapolis area has good tree coverage (although tree types/forest character is different from the East; that's just a function of climate).
I was more speaking to the presence of a fairly significant valley in the city proper.
But is it fair to say that one city is better for outdoor activities than another city if you have to leave the city to access these activities? I wouldn't give credit to Minneapolis for having proximity to the north woods, north shore, or the driftless area because these areas are not in the city or metro.
Most big inland cities are not located in the same area as the best outdoor recreation activities. Minneapolis IMO stands out for just how much outdoor adventuring you can do without traveling beyond I-494.
Chicago has beaches to die for, but anything else requires you travel beyond Chicagoland.
Kansas City and St. Louis share the Ozarks between them, but you have to drive for an hour from either before reaching the edge of the region.
It's a bit of a drive from Dallas or Fort Worth to any recreational hot spot, including Texas hill country. Same goes for Oklahoma City.
I will, however, grant that the Rockies begin right at the western edge of metro Denver. But they're not in metro Denver, either.
I guess it's the inner Midwesterner in me that will give places credit for having recreational activities within an hour or two drive of the city or metro. Philadelphians are used to driving that long to get to the southern Jersey Shore beaches, none of which are in the MSA but all of which are in the CSA.
I'm not super familiar with the immediate region, but the Twin Cities are right between the Driftless Area of Western Wisconsin and the Minnesota North Shore around hilly Duluth. Also the Twin Cities have a crazy bike path network and the South Dakota badlands and Black Hills, while not super close are not too far, 9 hour drive away.
Which are legit mountains comparable to anything on the east coast in elevation and more rugged to boot, being the beginning of the West.
Upstate New York has its mountains and I suppose the Maine coast isn't too far from Philly, and the Jersey shore and New York beach communities are nice, but why does Philly own the Twin Cities on this metric? Educate me.
If you care about elevation or topography, Minneapolis area is restricted by its flatness. Philadelphia doesn’t have mountains nearby but it does benefit from the valleys and ridges of Pennsylvania; if you look at a topographic map of Pennsylvania, it’s almost like a crumpled piece of paper. This makes more for more interesting hikes with better views and more interesting vistas. I understand that you can get somewhat similar topography in Minnesota when you venture up to the North Shore, but those types of landscapes aren’t as easily accessible as they are in Philadelphia.
If you care about elevation or topography, Minneapolis area is restricted by its flatness. Philadelphia doesn’t have mountains nearby but it does benefit from the valleys and ridges of Pennsylvania; if you look at a topographic map of Pennsylvania, it’s almost like a crumpled piece of paper. This makes more for more interesting hikes with better views and more interesting vistas. I understand that you can get somewhat similar topography in Minnesota when you venture up to the North Shore, but those types of landscapes aren’t as easily accessible as they are in Philadelphia.
You can get views and elevation in the driftless area which is just south of the Twin Cities.
If you care about elevation or topography, Minneapolis area is restricted by its flatness. Philadelphia doesn’t have mountains nearby but it does benefit from the valleys and ridges of Pennsylvania; if you look at a topographic map of Pennsylvania, it’s almost like a crumpled piece of paper. This makes more for more interesting hikes with better views and more interesting vistas. I understand that you can get somewhat similar topography in Minnesota when you venture up to the North Shore, but those types of landscapes aren’t as easily accessible as they are in Philadelphia.
Right, my point exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaszilla
You can get views and elevation in the driftless area which is just south of the Twin Cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
